1. Won each of the biggest events in tennis- Wimbledon and the U.S Open, once each. The only man on this list with 3 majors is Agassi and all 3 were at the Australian Open, which is lacking variety somewhat.

2. Won the year end Masters twice. Nobody else this decade other than Federer has done that.

3. Biggest of all was the year end #1 twice. Nobody else this decade other than Federer has been year end #1 as many or more times.

This isn't clearly defined, but I based my selections mostly on achievements, but also on other factors including tenure and my perception of their level of play.

1. Roger Federer

This one is obvious.

2. Rafael Nadal

Likewise.

3. Andre Agassi

This one is much more difficult. I picked Agassi over Hewitt despite Hewitt's impressive streak at #1 because the former played his best tennis from 1999-2004, and despite what anti-*******s say, played very well in the 2005 US Open final. Agassi won three majors in the 2000s, one more than Hewitt, featured in two other finals, won seven Masters Series events (compared to Hewitt's two), and had six years in the top ten, three in the top five.

4. Lleyton Hewitt

As noted above, it was a very tough call to pick Agassi over Hewitt. Between 2001-2002, Hewitt won the two most prestigious tournaments in the world, the U.S. Open and then Wimbledon, and capped off each season with a Masters Cup win and the top spot in the rankings, not to mention a Davis Cup win in 2003. However, he rates lower because he achieved all of this in a weaker transitional era while Sampras faded and Federer, Roddick, etc. had yet to emerge. True, the same could be said of Agassi's opponents through the same stretch of time, though his complete resume (and his extra Slam win) is more convincing and earns him the benefit of the doubt.

5. Marat Safin

This is another really close one, not in comparison to Hewitt, but the following guy, Gustavo Kuerten. Like Hewitt and Kuerten, Safin was a winner of two Slams in this decade. However, Kuerten also happened to achieve the year-end top ranking and a Masters Cup win where as Safin only had three top ten finishes with a much longer prime in this decade to work with. The nod goes to Safin, however, because in each of his two Slams, he displayed outrageous efforts against two legitimate GOAT contenders, demolishing Sampras at the 2000 U.S. Open, and outlasting Federer at the 2005 Australian Open.

6. Gustavo Kuerten

One of South America's greatest champions, Kuerten won three French Opens, two of them coming in this decade. While he did end with a year-end number one ranking and a Masters Cup (with amazing back-to-back wins over Sampras and Agassi), he ranks slightly lower because he had less MS titles (3 to 5), top ten finishes, (2 to 3), and his Major wins, while very impressive, did not come against the opposition that Safin faced.

7. Andy Roddick

One of the most underrated competitors in the history of the game, Roddick has been a stalwart in the top ten for an unprecedented amount of time in the 2000s, with seven (soon to be eight) seasons as one of the ten best players of the year. Roddick finished his impressive 2003 campaign with a win at the U.S. Open and two other semifinals, finishing the year with the top spot. Since then, he has garnered the unfortunate distinction of being the GOAT's whipping boy. But his Davis Cup wins, refusal to give up, and long tenure in the top ten put him at this spot on the list.

8. Pete Sampras

Sampras at this point was clearly past his prime, but still managed two Slam wins, two other finals, and two finishes in the top ten. However, he called it quits after 2002 so his shortened tenure in this era ranks him lower on this list. Still an impressive spot for someone with only three years in the decade.

9. Novak Djokovic

The young and impressive Serb crashed the scene in 2007, and made waves with consecutive wins over Nadal and Federer when he won the Toronto Masters in 2007 and lost in three tight sets to Federer in the U.S. Open finals that year. One of the youngest to reach the semis of all the Slams, Djokovic has finished consecutive seasons as the number three player in the world, behind only Federer and Nadal each time, and is about reach achieve his third straight season ranked in the top five. He has also won an impressive four titles at Masters Series events in this stretch of time. His sole GS win at the 2008 Australian Open featured an impressive dismantling over (an albeit ill) Federer and he ended 2008 with a win at the most important tournament after the Slams, the Masters Cup.

10. Juan Carlos Ferrero

Like Djokovic, the Mosquito rung up an impressive streak of three straight finishes in the top five from 2001-2003. During that stretch, he was featured in three Grand Slam finals, winning one at the French in 2003. He also collected four Masters Series titles (again, like Djokovic), a runner-up trophy in the Masters Cup, and briefly held the top spot in the rankings. However, unlike Djokovic, JCF has had copious amounts of time to achieve more, but fell off the map after 2003 and is very unlikely to ever again see the same success in those years.

If were talking about results, why throw in Murray over Del Potro? Sure he's done good at the 3 sets, but if both of them ended their careers tomorrow, people will remember Del Potro's efforts over Murray's

Why should he be there? Seriously though since he got injured Nalbandian's game has reached mythical status, I mean hes a talented player but come on he's not that good. He hasn't been pasted the 4th round of a slam since 06, and never really kicked on from his late 07 season form. The guy is waay overrated round these parts.

Why should he be there? Seriously though since he got injured Nalbandian's game has reached mythical status, I mean hes a talented player but come on he's not that good. He hasn't been pasted the 4th round of a slam since 06, and never really kicked on from his late 07 season form. The guy is waay overrated round these parts.

Click to expand...

It seems people love to build up underachievers around here and make even their potential (let alone their actual achievements and performance) far beyond what it really is. In Nalbandian's case even at his best, and if he were more commited to fitness/less of a mental flake, etc... he still is only a real contender on hard courts (French could make the semis once in awhile but could never win and his Wimbledon final was the fluke of all flukes), and even then probably only able to actually win on indoor courts which no slams are even played on.

Why should he be there? Seriously though since he got injured Nalbandian's game has reached mythical status, I mean hes a talented player but come on he's not that good. He hasn't been pasted the 4th round of a slam since 06, and never really kicked on from his late 07 season form. The guy is waay overrated round these parts.

Click to expand...

Very much so, although his backhand is for sure the best double-hander around.

It seems people love to build up underachievers around here and make even their potential (let alone their actual achievements and performance) far beyond what it really is. In Nalbandian's case even at his best, and if he were more commited to fitness/less of a mental flake, etc... he still is only a real contender on hard courts (French could make the semis once in awhile but could never win and his Wimbledon final was the fluke of all flukes), and even then probably only able to actually win on indoor courts which no slams are even played on.

Click to expand...

Yeah totally agree. The only slam he can win was the 03 US Open where he choked against Roddick, but the 06 AO despite choking against Baghdatis he would have never beaten Federer in the final, since Federer has owned him since 03 and Nalbandian would have choked anway, the 06 French Open semi he was leading against Federer before he got injured but he would never have beaten Nadal in a French Open final on Nadal's beloved clay. So he wins 1 slam max.

Yeah totally agree. The only slam he can win was the 03 US Open where he choked against Roddick, but the 06 AO despite choking against Baghdatis he would have never beaten Federer in the final, since Federer has owned him since 03 and Nalbandian would have choked anway, the 06 French Open semi he was leading against Federer before he got injured but he would never have beaten Nadal in a French Open final on Nadal's beloved clay. So he wins 1 slam max.

Click to expand...

Yeah pretty much agree with all of that. I think he had some shot in the 06 AO final only since Federer wasnt playing well at all for his standards that event (he played much better in 2005 and 2009 when he lost, maybe even 2008). However in the end he probably still loses and isnt mentally strong enough to beat even an off Federer in such a big match even if he gets close. Nalbandian would have no shot vs Nadal in a FO final despite that he has played well vs him on hard courts up to now.

This isn't clearly defined, but I based my selections mostly on achievements, but also on other factors including tenure and my perception of their level of play.

1. Roger Federer

This one is obvious.

2. Rafael Nadal

Likewise.

3. Andre Agassi

This one is much more difficult. I picked Agassi over Hewitt despite Hewitt's impressive streak at #1 because the former played his best tennis from 1999-2004, and despite what anti-*******s say, played very well in the 2005 US Open final. Agassi won three majors in the 2000s, one more than Hewitt, featured in two other finals, won seven Masters Series events (compared to Hewitt's two), and had six years in the top ten, three in the top five.

4. Lleyton Hewitt

As noted above, it was a very tough call to pick Agassi over Hewitt. Between 2001-2002, Hewitt won the two most prestigious tournaments in the world, the U.S. Open and then Wimbledon, and capped off each season with a Masters Cup win and the top spot in the rankings, not to mention a Davis Cup win in 2003. However, he rates lower because he achieved all of this in a weaker transitional era while Sampras faded and Federer, Roddick, etc. had yet to emerge. True, the same could be said of Agassi's opponents through the same stretch of time, though his complete resume (and his extra Slam win) is more convincing and earns him the benefit of the doubt.

5. Marat Safin

This is another really close one, not in comparison to Hewitt, but the following guy, Gustavo Kuerten. Like Hewitt and Kuerten, Safin was a winner of two Slams in this decade. However, Kuerten also happened to achieve the year-end top ranking and a Masters Cup win where as Safin only had three top ten finishes with a much longer prime in this decade to work with. The nod goes to Safin, however, because in each of his two Slams, he displayed outrageous efforts against two legitimate GOAT contenders, demolishing Sampras at the 2000 U.S. Open, and outlasting Federer at the 2005 Australian Open.

6. Gustavo Kuerten

One of South America's greatest champions, Kuerten won three French Opens, two of them coming in this decade. While he did end with a year-end number one ranking and a Masters Cup (with amazing back-to-back wins over Sampras and Agassi), he ranks slightly lower because he had less MS titles (3 to 5), top ten finishes, (2 to 3), and his Major wins, while very impressive, did not come against the opposition that Safin faced.

7. Andy Roddick

One of the most underrated competitors in the history of the game, Roddick has been a stalwart in the top ten for an unprecedented amount of time in the 2000s, with seven (soon to be eight) seasons as one of the ten best players of the year. Roddick finished his impressive 2003 campaign with a win at the U.S. Open and two other semifinals, finishing the year with the top spot. Since then, he has garnered the unfortunate distinction of being the GOAT's whipping boy. But his Davis Cup wins, refusal to give up, and long tenure in the top ten put him at this spot on the list.

8. Pete Sampras

Sampras at this point was clearly past his prime, but still managed two Slam wins, two other finals, and two finishes in the top ten. However, he called it quits after 2002 so his shortened tenure in this era ranks him lower on this list. Still an impressive spot for someone with only three years in the decade.

9. Novak Djokovic

The young and impressive Serb crashed the scene in 2007, and made waves with consecutive wins over Nadal and Federer when he won the Toronto Masters in 2007 and lost in three tight sets to Federer in the U.S. Open finals that year. One of the youngest to reach the semis of all the Slams, Djokovic has finished consecutive seasons as the number three player in the world, behind only Federer and Nadal each time, and is about reach achieve his third straight season ranked in the top five. He has also won an impressive four titles at Masters Series events in this stretch of time. His sole GS win at the 2008 Australian Open featured an impressive dismantling over (an albeit ill) Federer and he ended 2008 with a win at the most important tournament after the Slams, the Masters Cup.

10. Juan Carlos Ferrero

Like Djokovic, the Mosquito rung up an impressive streak of three straight finishes in the top five from 2001-2003. During that stretch, he was featured in three Grand Slam finals, winning one at the French in 2003. He also collected four Masters Series titles (again, like Djokovic), a runner-up trophy in the Masters Cup, and briefly held the top spot in the rankings. However, unlike Djokovic, JCF has had copious amounts of time to achieve more, but fell off the map after 2003 and is very unlikely to ever again see the same success in those years.

Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that I might consider switching Ferrero and Djokovic, this is a great list and great analysis.

Yeah pretty much agree with all of that. I think he had some shot in the 06 AO final only since Federer wasnt playing well at all for his standards that event (he played much better in 2005 and 2009 when he lost, maybe even 2008). However in the end he probably still loses and isnt mentally strong enough to beat even an off Federer in such a big match even if he gets close. Nalbandian would have no shot vs Nadal in a FO final despite that he has played well vs him on hard courts up to now.

Click to expand...

Yeah true Federer wasn't playing well in 06 but I would back him to win against Nalbandian in a slam final. Infact im not sure Nalbandian would beat gassed Ferrero in 03 he's that much of a mental midget he probably finds a way to lose.

excellent analysis, thankyou for being the guy that put JCF ahead of murray

Click to expand...

Murray would barely be in the top 15. I'd put JMDP at #11 for his very impressive Slam win to cap off the decade over the two top players in that period and for his almost equally surprising win streak last year. Next would be Nalbandian for his string of years in the top ten, his impressive Masters Cup win as well as the two MS events, and his very respectable H2H against Federer and Nadal. Next, probably Davydenko, for just as remarkable consistency as Nalbandian, but with fewer big wins. Murray next, as he's proven he's a stable presence in the top five (though only for two years) and has a very favorable record against Federer, as well as several MS titles - however, his presence in the majors is suspect. Coria would be last, for he was in the top ten for a few years and won a few big clay tournaments, but that was about the only surface he accomplished anything on, and didn't win the big one when he should have.

I can't in good conscience include Gaudio - he did win a Slam, but did almost literally nothing besides that, failing to ever advance past the fourth round of any other major tournament and possessing no MS titles.

How can some people even put hewitt above kuerten, kuerten was/is/always will be the better and more successful player. PERIOD.

Click to expand...

This is the 2000s - Kuerten's accomplishments before the decade are almost null and void unless it's necessary as a sort of tiebreaker. Hewitt is a much more accomplished player than Kuerten in the 2000s; four Slam finals to two, five years in the top 10 to two, two years as #1 to one, 25 titles to 15, QFs in all the Slam to QFs in only two Slams, etc.

My criteria are pretty self explanatory: # of big tournaments won, other tournaments as well when ties. Delpo is nowhere near making the list for the 2000 decade since this year is the last year of it and Delpo has only won 1 big tournament so far. He will probably make the list for the next decade though.
I can understand replacing Murray with Sampras since Sampras only won 3 major titles but 2 of them were slams.

Hewitt winning two year-end championships doesn't qualify as big tournaments? I'm sorry, but that's a fail. Only Federer this decade has won the 5th biggest tournament of the year more than Hewitt.

Click to expand...

To me, the master cup is more like an exhibition tournament given how different from anything else the format is and also you cannot put it on the same level as slams or master shields since very few players can participate. Even if I counted it, I would only count it "on top", not "instead of".
2 master shield titles (what's more of the same master) is a very poor record for a top player over a decade.
This being said, I can understand giving more weight to master cup but I also want to point out that unlike Roddick for instance Hewitt was also AWOL for the whole second part of the decade (no longevity points either).

To me, the master cup is more like an exhibition tournament given how different from anything else the format is and also you cannot put it on the same level as slams or master shields since very few players can participate. Even if I counted it, I would only count it "on top", not "instead of".
2 master shield titles (what's more of the same master) is a very poor record for a top player over a decade.
This being said, I can understand giving more weight to master cup but I also want to point out that unlike Roddick for instance Hewitt was also AWOL for the whole second part of the decade (no longevity points either).

Click to expand...

To me the French open is an exhibition tournament given how no one cares about clay. sounds dumb right? and two year end number ones is better than anyone else in the decade except federer

Also, while they obviously don't mean as much as GS + MS, I would say Hewitt's other tournaments won have to carry SOME weight when comparing him to, say, Ferrero.

Click to expand...

That's true. The reason why I only considered overall # of tournaments in case of ties is that I think it's too easy to win small tournaments where the competition can vary widely and I think masters and slams are much more significant as to a player's dominance on the competition.
All those choices are arguable though, I'm not denying it.

My criteria are pretty self explanatory: # of big tournaments won, other tournaments as well when ties. Delpo is nowhere near making the list for the 2000 decade since this year is the last year of it and Delpo has only won 1 big tournament so far. He will probably make the list for the next decade though.
I can understand replacing Murray with Sampras since Sampras only won 3 major titles but 2 of them were slams.

Click to expand...

Well regardless of your views of the value of the #1 ranking the year end Masters is definitely bigger than a regular Masters. Otherwise your criteria is good but you certainly cant exclude the year end Masters in this case which is bigger than a regular Masters, and an event Hewitt won twice which in that case at the very least easily puts him over Ferrero, Djokovic, and Roddick as far as pure achievements go anyway.

To me the French open is an exhibition tournament given how no one cares about clay. sounds dumb right? and two year end number ones is better than anyone else in the decade except federer

Click to expand...

For a slam, one has to win 7 5-set matches, no byes. Sorry but no comparison to a tournament that has round robins and where the winner can even afford to lose a match on his way to the title!
The reason why I didn't consider ranking at all (which would be an alternative very legitimate perspective) is because I wanted to emphasize players' domination in a specific era and big titles seemed the best gauge of that. A guy who would make every single final for several years but would never win a title would not be a dominant player in my eyes but I imagine he would be ranked high.
Once again, it's only my point of view and I can understand your arguments in favor of Hewitt.

For a slam, one has to win 7 5-set matches, no byes. Sorry but no comparison to a tournament that has round robins and where the winner can even afford to lose a match on his way to the title!
The reason why I didn't consider ranking at all (which would be an alternative very legitimate perspective) is because I wanted to emphasize players' domination in a specific area and big titles seemed the best gauge of that. A guy who would make every single final for several years but would never win a title would not be a dominant player in my eyes but I imagine he would be ranked high.
Once again, it's only my point of view and I can understand your arguments in favor of Hewitt.

Click to expand...

I don;t want to turn this into a slam vs tmc debate but in slams a player doesnt have to play 5 straight matches against top 10 players to win it all. They (if they;re top seeds) get pretty routine matches until the 4th/quarters. Then its only 3-4 matches if there aren't any upsets. That;s why I;m considering the TMC, the level of competition is must higher. and it was a lot harder to win when Hewitt won them because they were still playing the 5 set finals instead of the 3 sets today.

To me, the master cup is more like an exhibition tournament given how different from anything else the format is and also you cannot put it on the same level as slams or master shields since very few players can participate. Even if I counted it, I would only count it "on top", not "instead of".
2 master shield titles (what's more of the same master) is a very poor record for a top player over a decade.
This being said, I can understand giving more weight to master cup but I also want to point out that unlike Roddick for instance Hewitt was also AWOL for the whole second part of the decade (no longevity points either).

Click to expand...

No, the YEC is far bigger than any Masters tournament, and from the mid-70s to mid-80s it was more prestigious than the Australian or French Opens. Just because Nadal has never even come close to winning it doesn't take away from how big a tournament it is.

I don;t want to turn this into a slam vs tmc debate but in slams a player doesnt have to play 5 straight matches against top 10 players to win it all. They (if they;re top seeds) get pretty routine matches until the 4th/quarters. Then its only 3-4 matches if there aren't any upsets. That;s why I;m considering the TMC, the level of competition is must higher. and it was a lot harder to win when Hewitt won them because they were still playing the 5 set finals instead of the 3 sets today.

Click to expand...

In master cup, one DOES NOT have to win 5 straight (consecutive) matches (unlike regular masters) since they're allowed to lose 1 match on the way and a lot of players over the years have done just that. No matter how you spin it, one thing I cannot agree with AT ALL is that somehow Hewitt would overtake Agassi in the 2000 decade. That is utter nonsense. 2 master cups cannot supersede 3 slams and 7 master titles, not before, not now, not in any decade. Agassi's career was immensely superior to Hewitt's on the whole as well (and yes Agassi won master cup too!)

No, the YEC is far bigger than any Masters tournament, and from the mid-70s to mid-80s it was more prestigious than the Australian or French Opens. Just because Nadal has never even come close to winning it doesn't take away from how big a tournament it is.

Click to expand...

It is not "far" bigger but even if it was, it's awkward to compare to other tournaments because unlike any other tournament, it's not open or accessible to all players. That means it gives too much importance to ranking, which is something I didn't want to do for reasons explained previously.

veroniquem if you dont want to give much priority to the Tennis Masters Cup or even consider it bigger than a Masters event that is fine, but do realize that nearly everyone else considers the Tennis Masters Cup clearly bigger than a Masters event and our rankings of Hewitt will be reflective of that. That plus his two year end #1 rankings which is truly a big thing. Weak field or not that is a huge feat. We are basically analyzing the fact Hewitt won the two biggest events in tennis- Wimbledon and the U.S Open, two year end Masters Cups which nearly everyone agrees are the biggest non slam events, and two year end #1s all together.

Now as for comparing to Agassi this decade of course that is subjective. However Agassi won all 3 of his slams at the same venue which shows significantly less versatility than winning the biggest grass court and biggest hard court event, and it is the slam still by many considered the least prestigious slam also. I dont think someone would choose to win 3 Australian Opens over 1 Wimbledon and 1 U.S Open neccessarily. Agassi also was outdueled head to head for the year end #1 in 2001 and 2002 by Hewitt. Speaking of the importance of the year end Masters both Agassi and Hewitt went into it in 2001 and 2002 neck and neck for the year end #1 and Hewitt outdid Agassi (including beating him in a pivitol RR match in the 2001 edition to eliminate Agassi and ensure the year end #1 ranking) at the year end Masters both times to claim that over Agassi. Agassi was public on both occasions about really wanting to end the year #1 too, but Hewitt beat him to the punch both years. So if we are limiting to just the players play in the 2000s alone there is definitely argument to put Hewitt over Agassi. Of course if it was their whole careers it would be no contest.

In master cup, one DOES NOT have to win 5 straight (consecutive) matches (unlike regular masters) since they're allowed to lose 1 match on the way and a lot of players over the years have done just that. No matter how you spin it, one thing I cannot agree with AT ALL is that somehow Hewitt would overtake Agassi in the 2000 decade. That is utter nonsense. 2 master cups cannot supersede 3 slams and 7 master titles, not before, not now, not in any decade. Agassi's career was immensely superior to Hewitt's on the whole as well (and yes Agassi won master cup too!)

Click to expand...

I hope you remember the YEC masters features the TOP 8 players of the world, not a field of 128 with lollipop first round byes, and second rd walkovers. The round robin gives the spectators a better chance to catch their favorite players.

Plus if you know anything about men, when the top dogs come to fight, they don't just show up to play pong, there is prestige and ego on the line. That is why Murray wanted to beat up on a clearly injured Federer in a round-robin match EVEN THOUGH he was already assured of going thru to the next round.